Know More: The 30-Day Custody Bills – What They Propose and Why the Opposition Says They Can Be Misused

India’s Parliament has witnessed intense debate after the government introduced three Bills that would remove the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers from office if they are arrested and kept in custody for 30 continuous days on serious criminal charges. The government says this introduces a clear rule to protect governance and public trust. Opposition parties say the move can be misused because it is based on custody, not conviction, which undermines due process.

What the Bills are:

• Constitutional Amendment Bill: Adds explicit clauses to the Constitution to remove a PM, Union Minister, CM, or State Minister if they remain in custody for 30 straight days for a serious offence (generally punishable by 5 years or more).
• Union Territories Amendment Bill: Extends the same removal rule to governments in Union Territories like Delhi and Puducherry.
• Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Amendment Bill: Adapts the same rule for J&K’s framework.

Status:
These are proposed laws (Bills). They have been introduced and are expected to face committee scrutiny and debate before any final vote. They are not in force yet.

How the removal would work:

• Trigger: If a PM/CM/Minister is in custody for 30 continuous days on a serious charge, the office is vacated on Day 31.
• Formality: Normally, the President/Governor removes Ministers based on advice from the PM/CM. If no advice is issued by Day 31, the removal applies automatically from the next day.
• For PMs/CMs: If a PM or CM hits the 30-day custody threshold, they must resign by Day 31; if not, they automatically cease to hold office from the next day.
• Not permanent: If released later, the person can be reappointed under normal constitutional procedures. This is not a lifetime ban.

Why the government says this is needed:

• There is no explicit constitutional rule for a situation where a top executive remains in jail for an extended period while still in office.
• The government argues this harms governance and public confidence.
• A uniform, time-bound rule reduces ambiguity and avoids ad hoc political handling.

Why the opposition disagrees:

• Misuse risk: The trigger is custody, not conviction. Opponents warn arrests and prolonged remand can be engineered via investigative processes to remove elected leaders without a court verdict.
• Due process concerns: Removing an elected leader before a court finds guilt undermines the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
• 30 days is too low: Detention beyond 30 days can happen due to procedural delays or bail denials, making the threshold easy to game.
• Agencies over courts: Tying removal to custody gives investigative agencies leverage over top elected offices, rather than courts deciding outcomes through trials and convictions.
• Federalism: The rule could destabilize opposition-ruled states by enabling removals through custody, upsetting Centre–State balance.

Key points for readers:

• Applies only to serious offences generally punishable by 5+ years, and only if custody continues for 30 straight days.
• Not a permanent disqualification; reappointment is possible after release.
• Still a proposal; must pass both Houses (and complete the constitutional process) before becoming law.

Possible safeguards to address misuse:

• Require a judicial check: Make removal contingent on a reasoned order by a higher court, not automatic custody count alone.
• Raise the threshold: Consider a longer custody period (e.g., 60–90 days).
• Define terms clearly: Precisely define “serious offence,” exclude preventive detention, and clarify how different types of custody (e.g., hospital custody, house arrest) are counted.
• Time-bound review: Add a sunset clause and mandate periodic parliamentary review.
• Protect democratic mandates: Ensure removal doesn’t distort legislative majority tests; require prompt floor tests where needed.

Why this matters:
If enacted as proposed, any sitting PM, CM, or Minister in 30-day custody for a serious offence would have to vacate office, potentially triggering leadership changes and political instability. Supporters say it upholds governance standards; critics warn it could incentivize strategic arrests and undermine due process.

This article has been prepared for Fikrokhabar as a explainer based on parliamentary developments and public statements. It reflects the core proposals, the government’s stated rationale, and the opposition’s stated concerns, with an emphasis on the real risk of misuse and the need for safeguards.